Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

MojoMan · Nov 28, 2009

From the New York Times:

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Some prominent climate scientists are calling for changes in the way research on global warming is conducted after a British university said thousands of private e-mail messages and documents had been stolen from its climate center.

The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.

“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.

She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.

A fierce debate over the significance of the hacked material erupted as soon as the e-mail messages and other documents surfaced on Web sites just over a week ago. Some see in the e-mail correspondence — which includes heated discussions about warming trends, advice on deleting potentially controversial e-mail messages and derisive comments about climate skeptics — evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, “Climategate.”

To others, the e-mail messages are merely evidence that climate scientists can be as competitive, proprietary, defensive and caustic as people engaged in any other high-level enterprise. They cast as villains those who disclosed the e-mail correspondence and who now, they say, are distorting the contents.

....
Click to expand...

Finally, a little sanity in this discussion.

Clearly, there needs to be a lot more transparency with regards to the practice of climate science. A lot of the proposals discussed in this article are long overdue. These kinds of steps, if they are actually implemented and maintained, will help to ensure that a bunch of agenda driven scientists will no longer be able to dominate the scientific journals, or operate without having their data and procedures properly evaluated by their scientific peers, including scientists who might be {gasp} skeptical of their findings.

These recommendations need to be followed up on and implemented. I expect that a great many people will be watching carefully to see whether this actually happens or not.

PointForward · Nov 28, 2009

you're on a roll today. Take it easy, brah

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=177715

already posted, a few posts down on the first page. Is it really that hard to look for it?

and may I suggest something about sanity, why don't you and your ridiculous anti-science comrades get your head out of your collective arses and examine scientific FACTS, which clearly show that climate change is no elaborate hoax, and that human influence on it IS significant.

AntiSonic · Nov 28, 2009

back off man, we're a scientist!

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html

Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you!

The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer-review" process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The "science" of the CRU dominates the "science" behind the United Nations IPCC, which dominates the "science" behind the Congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now-routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it's President Barack Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

But don't worry, it's all "peer-reviewed."

Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review". When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted." When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Which, in essence, is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That's "peer review," climate-style. The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the "peer-reviewed" "consensus." And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line and tree-ring.

The e-mails of "Andy" (as his CRU chums fondly know him) are especially pitiful. Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose "Climate Audit" Web site exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann's global-warming "hockey stick" graph, "Andy" writes to Dr. Mann to say not to worry, he's going to "cover" the story from a more oblique angle:

"I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

"peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?"

And, amazingly, Dr. Mann does!

"Re, your point at the end – you've taken the words out of my mouth."

And that's what Andrew Revkin did, week in, week out: He took the words out of Michael Mann's mouth and served them up to impressionable readers of the New York Times and opportunist politicians around the world champing at the bit to inaugurate a vast global regulatory body to confiscate trillions of dollars of your hard-earned wealth in the cause of "saving the planet" from an imaginary crisis concocted by a few dozen thuggish ideologues. If you fall for this after the revelations of the past week, you're as big a dupe as Begley or Revkin.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask "Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?" Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The "consensus" warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as "peer-reviewed" if it's published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc. (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and "Andy" Revkin would still have wandered out, glassy-eyed, into the streets droning "Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled ... ."

Looking forward to Copenhagen, Herman Van Rumpoy, the new president of the European Union and an eager proponent of the ecopalypse, says 2009 is "the first year of global governance." Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office. Hey, but don't worry, it'll all be "peer-reviewed."
Click to expand...

HAIL SCIENCE!

MojoMan · Nov 28, 2009

PointForward said:

you're on a roll today. Take it easy, brah

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=177715

already posted, a few posts down on the first page. Is it really that hard to look for it?
Click to expand...

This was not already posted. You are mistaken, as usual.

rocketsjudoka · Nov 28, 2009

Not saying this isn't worthy of discussion but this really could've gone in the other thread since it is about the same topic, the hacked emails.

MojoMan · Nov 28, 2009

rocketsjudoka said:

Not saying this isn't worthy of discussion but this really could've gone in the other thread since it is about the same topic, the hacked emails.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about the hacked emails. It is about calls to reform climate science.

DonnyMost · Nov 28, 2009

Already a thread up on this.

Post walruses to save thread.

surrender · Nov 28, 2009

Already posted

rocketsjudoka · Nov 28, 2009

MojoMan said:

This thread is not about the hacked emails. It is about calls to reform climate science.
Click to expand...

How come the title of the thread is "Hacked E-Mail prompts Calls to Reform Climate Science"? Clearly the Hacked Email is what spurred the subject, which is already being debated in another thread. That thread is called "Hacked E-Mail is fodder for Climate Dispute". Obviously the "Climate Dispute" would also entail "calls to reform climate science."

This thread strikes me as less of an attempt at debate but spamming the forum akin to the multiple T-Mac threads in GARM.

Ottomaton · Nov 28, 2009

I don't want to perpetuate the attempt at an end-around, but this is the most rational meta-summary I've seen on the whole issue.

[rquoter]

More Insight on Those Leaked Climate Change Emails

Cory told you earlier this week about the recent hacking at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, and the subsequent distribution of emails that some people say prove a global conspiracy to promote anthropogenic climate change contrary to evidence.

I wanted to get a handle on this before I posted, so I've been reading coverage and analysis for the last few days. Here's a few key points I'm picking up...

1) Evidence of vast conspiracy is sorely lacking. Ditto evidence disproving the scientific consensus on climate change. This isn't the "nail in the coffin" of anything. However, the emails do prompt some legit questions about transparency and how professional researchers respond to criticism in the age of the armchair scientist.

In fact, the whole reason the CRU seems to have been hacked is that the Unit was fighting off requests for access to the data sets it used to put together its climate models. This is one of the issues that gets discussed in the e-mails. Basically, some of the CRU researchers didn't want to release the data to people who weren't trained scientists because they were tired of spending their time fighting with bloggers and wanted to focus on research. Which is great, except for two things: First, from what I'm reading it looks like there might have been some ethical lapses in how the researchers went about blocking the release of data; Second, when you block the release of data, no matter what your real reason is, people will assume it's because you're hiding something nefarious. One of the positive outcomes of this whole hacking debacle is that it's forcing some discussion about when circling the wagons becomes protectionism, and might lead to the climate change data sets becoming more open source. Frankly, I think that's a good thing.

2) Theft is bad. But if you're a researcher who can explain context to the general public, decrying theft shouldn't be your primary objective right now.

This goes back to the whole transparency issue. This would-be scandal ought to be a learning opportunity--a chance for scientists to educate the public on the evidence for climate change. And while there is plenty of that going on, there's also a lot of people making arguments like, "we shouldn't even be talking about the content of the emails because they are stolen property." Well, you're right, they are stolen property and, technically, should be left private. But you know what? Skeptics of climate change are using these emails, no matter what you think. If experts and researchers refuse to address them, it's just going to mean that the only narrative the public hears is the one that thinks the emails are proof of conspiracy. Not helpful.

3) The Mainstream Media is covering this. They just might not be covering it the way you want, and that's probably a good thing.

I've heard from several people who have asked me why MM isn't on top of this story, and read several complaints to that effect on blogs. It comes both from people who think the emails are proof of conspiracy, and those who think there's absolutely nothing wrong in the emails at all. But I've been reading great coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post (both the official publications and attached blogs), and elsewhere. In that light, I kind of interpret the complaints as, "The MM isn't saying what I want them to say." OK. That's good. Because the story is a bit more nuanced than either opposing position would have you believe and MM coverage is reflecting that.

And now, I bring you a whole crap-ton of links.

Basically, everything I say above is a synthesis of what I've read here. I'm including all of these so you know I'm not just pulling this out of my tookus, so you can delve more deeply into this stuff if you want and because it's all pretty interesting if you're wonky like that. And I bet you are.

• FiveThirtyEight: <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html"> I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail</a>
 • openDemocracy: <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/real-scandal-in-hacked-climate-change-e-mails-controversy">The Real Scandal in the Hacked Climate Change Emails Controversy</a>
 • Ed Darrell Purloined: <a href="http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/purloined-cru-e-mails-on-climate-science-one-scientist-pleads-for-accuracy/">CRU e-mails on climate science: One scientist pleads for accuracy</a> and <a href="http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/smoking-guns-in-the-clr-stolen-e-mails-a-real-tale-of-real-ethics-in-science/">Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails: A real tale of real ethics in science</a>
 • The Guardian: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists"> Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see</a>
 • Wired: <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack/">Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate</a>
 • Reuters: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23263425">ANALYSIS-Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer</a>
 • Energy Collective: <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/52169">Do Leaked Emails Undermine the Scientific Consensus?</a>
 • Energy Collective: <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/52215">An Interesting Gripe</a>
 • Climate Progress: <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/">Here's What We Know So Far</a>
 • Climate Progress: <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth">Let's Look At the Illegally Hacked Emails In More Detail</a>
 • Washington Post Capital Weather Gang Blog: <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/11/perspective_on_a_climate_scien.html"> Two Parts </a>in a <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/11/perspectives_on_a_climate_scie.html#more">Three-Part Series</a> on Expert Opinions on Climate Change Emails (third part not yet published)
 • Climate Audit: <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826#more-7826">Curry on the Credibility of Climate Research</a>
 • Washington Post proper: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html">Two Articles</a> on the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html">Hacking of the Files and Its Aftermath</a>
 • Science magazine Science Insider blog: <a href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html">In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime?</a>
 • Yale Climate Media Forum: <a href="http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/11/climate-scientists-emails-hacked-posted/">Climate Scientists' E-mails Hacked, Posted; So What Does it All Mean for the Climate? </a>
 • New York Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html">Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute </a>
 • NYT Dot Earth blog: <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/your-dot-concerns-about-climate-files">Two Posts</a> Plus <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/your-dot-on-science-and-cyber-terrorism/">Expert Commentary</a>
 • National Review Online: <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODg2M2Q0MWM3NGQ2ZTQyZmE3ZjkyNmJmMGI4ZTcwYjg=">Climate Change Scandal</a>
 • Real Climate: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/">Two Posts</a> + <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/">Tons More In Comments</a>, Responses from Scientists Whose Emails Got Hacked

[/rquoter]

MrRoboto · Nov 28, 2009

MojoMan said:

This was not already posted. You are mistaken, as usual.
Click to expand...

No apology for the fact you were mistaken, and then accusing another poster of being the mistaken one "as usual"?

It was already posted. You were mistaken. You owe him an apology and should be thankful for the opportunity to learn that you are just as fallible as the rest of the stupid humans.

MrRoboto · Nov 28, 2009

Oh, I see. It is a continuation of the "theme of the far right". Point the finger for others to take responsibility for themselves while shirking that same responsibility for yourself.

Hypocrisy we can believe in.

I see why the triumvirate of D&D butt buddies hangs so closely together as it would quickly unravel if any of you morons had to take responsibility for your baseless claims or had to think beyond your "conservative" talking points.

The modern definition of conservatism appears to be that you never have to say your sorry - even when you are wrong.

For a lesson on a true conservative look up some Frank Zappa interviews on YouTube.

Northside Storm · Nov 28, 2009

...I really don't understand this crap about "agenda-driven" scientists, as if there's some global warming conspiracy among a small fringe of scientists.

If so, why?

To get published and rewarded by scientific institutions?

But why do scientific institutions promote global warming? Are they all selling short on oil companies or something?

Don't think anyone has ever provided a definitive answer to that.

Steve_Francis_rules · Nov 29, 2009

AntiSonic said:

back off man, we're a scientist!

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html

HAIL SCIENCE!
Click to expand...

Sometimes peer-reviewed scientific journals deserve to be shunned for some of the things they publish. Here is an article discussing two such examples.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

MojoMan · Nov 29, 2009

Unbelievable. This is a complete fraud. Some of these people badly need to spend some time behind bars.

From the London Times:

Climate Change Data Dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

....
Click to expand...

But even a revelation like this will have no effect on some of the denser posters here on this board. Some people are apparently impenetrable, even with a Bunker-Buster like this.

AntiSonic · Nov 29, 2009

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cu_ok37HDuE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cu_ok37HDuE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Samurai Jack · Nov 29, 2009

I find it hard to believe that some think this is a bunch of harmless emails.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The mainstream is going to look even less credible after avoiding this one.

Ottomaton · Nov 29, 2009

Samurai Jack said:

I find it hard to believe that some think this is a bunch of harmless emails.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The mainstream is going to look even less credible after avoiding this one.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could quote some of the damning text from these emails? What, exactly, are the bits of text that clearly show the conspiratorial "'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords".

Please provide details, and also provide links back to the texts so we can all confirm the conspiracy for ourselves.

Samurai Jack · Nov 30, 2009

Ottomaton said:

Maybe you could quote some of the damning text from these emails? What, exactly, are the bits of text that clearly show the conspiratorial "'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords".
Click to expand...

"marching orders" , " socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords" Remember, you said that, not me.

To lazy to post all of the emails, a list of emails are available just two post up. Do you really think that all of them are harmless?

Btw, why didn't you post the entire article where you stole that quote from?

Ottomaton · Nov 30, 2009

Samurai Jack said:

To lazy to post all of the emails, a list of emails are available just two post up. Do you really think that all of them are harmless?

Btw, why didn't you post the entire article where you stole that quote from?
Click to expand...

I posted a link to it already.

I still haven't seen a single email that shows anything other than the great annoyance that I share with them with respect to zombie-like GW-deniers who twist even ths slightest hint of nuance into "proof" that the whole theory is bunk, not unlike Young Earth Creationists talking about open questions with evolution "disproving" the entire thing.

But since you seem to lazy to even read beyond what you see in Youtube videos, here it is:

[rquoter]
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

[/rquoter]

source

Your laziness is apparently even preventing you from understanding the situation beyond talking points spoon fed to you. I'm sure you are not alone, and the people who are doing it are counting on it.

Forums

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

MojoMan Member

PointForward Member

AntiSonic Member

MojoMan Member

rocketsjudoka Member

MojoMan Member

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member

surrender Member

rocketsjudoka Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

MrRoboto Member

MrRoboto Member

Northside Storm Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

MojoMan Member

AntiSonic Member

Samurai Jack Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

Samurai Jack Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

MojoMan Member

PointForward Member

AntiSonic Member

MojoMan Member

rocketsjudoka Member

MojoMan Member

DonnyMost Member Supporting Member

surrender Member

rocketsjudoka Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

MrRoboto Member

MrRoboto Member

Northside Storm Member

Steve_Francis_rules Member

MojoMan Member

AntiSonic Member

Samurai Jack Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

Samurai Jack Member

Ottomaton Member Supporting Member

Share This Page

DonnyMost Member
Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member

Ottomaton Member
Supporting Member